Kh-31a and its later variants can sort of be called a manageable air launched supersonic antiship missile. While still a bit larger than your average harpoon, and certainly larger than nsm/jsm family, its size does allow a usual mission loadout of two missiles per aircraft. Theoretically larger ac like su30 family could carry even four.

Also, kh-31, at least in its ma-31 variant, is the only supersonic missile that is confirmed to actually do a mach 2.5 low level run, five or so meters above sea level. Such a result was also corroborated by confirmed 2.5 mach low level speed of its american counterpart, gqm-163, which is size wise and design wise rather similar. Furthermore, operator of ma-31 variant claims 20 g manouvers. That and other data available here: 2004 report

Actual seeker tech level is an unknown, though there have been at least two further variants since the original kh-31a missile, kh-31ad, which had a longer body, and kh-31am, which added a new seeker. But truth to be told, i haven’t heard much of kh-31am variant even though it was supposed to go into testing some 7-8 years ago. The core design seems sound, though. With a new, modern avionics suite kh-31 seems to be quite potent. A big drawback is certainly its poor range. Subsonic 10 km launch yields a modest 50-60 km range. 15 km launch, according to the manufacturer, gets you to 70 km of usable range. All that means that the delivery platform itself needs to fly low and do a pop up manouver for the launch. subsonic 300 meter launch, according to ma-31 document gets you 37 km range. Enough to evade ships but perhaps not enough to strike deep within a task force of several ships without first peeling the outer layers of their defense (outer ships)

Using the longer body, AD variant (ADM? in modernized seeker version?) one gets quite decent 120-160 km range, according to manufacturer. Though the latter figure is mach 1.5 at 15 km. All that suggests that the ranges, while enough against certain threats, are not enough for all threats and that the low level approach by the delivery platform is still sometimes the best choice. Lucikly for the user, the added range does allow for pop up launch manouver at longer ranges, probably enough for striking deep within the spread out task force. And please lets not get into operational details. Low level approach is a possibility, its by no means (as everything in war) a sure thing. Enemy could potentially use third party platforms to detect and help bring down/deter launch platform or even missile itself. That applies to any missile in the world, results range dependant.

A thing to note – a some western missiles too can’t really be sure to be air launched from high altitude, for maximum range, and still do it outside of theoretical range of a theoretical threat. Exocet AM39 mod2, which was recently tested, despite its new avionics and seeker, is still a 70+ km missile when launched from high altitude. Range wise it is almost as bad as original kh-31a.

rbs15f, even in block ii configuration, if i am not mistaken, still has 150 km range. (air launched)

Air launched harpoon has in newer versions, with better fuel, gotten to a very respectable 220 km range, outside most of SAM systems, if one wants/needs to settle a straight flying trajectory.

i am not sure if there ever was a nsm in air launched variant or the effort shifted entirely on jsm project as the air launched choice of that family of weapons. Anyway, one aviationweek article did cite a 280 km range when air launched (presumably at high altitude). Save for some theoretical naval s400 sam system that should be enough to stay out of all known/near future systems. Again, if one settles for a less efficient straight to the target flight route.

supersonic missiles certainly do lack in range compared to subsonics, but as the tech progresses for both sides, so does range/weight class ratio. brahmos class weapon which would stay under expected radar horizon the whole time (save for possible target check pop out manouver) certainly wont have the theoretical maximum range of same weapon flying at 10 or 15 km altitude. But flying as high as possible while staying under the expected radar horizon, then cruising at a very shallow dive trajectory (to keep itself from going over the expected radar horizon of the enemy) is still more fuel efficient than a sea skimming profile throughout. If a basic kh31a derivative, ma31, can do 37 km in pure sea skimming mode, as seen in that file i linked, then a brahmos class missile could be expected to double that figure, and perhaps double it still for the described medium altitude, descending as to keep below radar, trajectory. Actual math would require more time, but a ballpark figure of 150 or so km seems realistic.

That being said, brahmos class missiles are still really too large for your everyday multirole fighter. even indian su30 will be carrying just one per plane. As we are seeing with japanese supersonic asm-3 missile and chinese yj-15 missile (Even if the latter is still shrouded in much secrecy, but some images have leaked out), it seems the air launched supersonics, despite the range challenge, will strive to be closer to sub 1 ton class weapons than closer to brahmos sized 2.5 ton weapons. I don’t know how reliable the figure is, but asm-3 is sometimes claimed with a 200 km range. For a weapon of that size and supersonic flight profile, that is a pretty good figure. It might allow a 100+ km launch point for the delivery aircraft, while still below expected radar horizon.

supersonic speed and lowering the radar cross section are not two interchangeable objectives. while certainly easier and more efficient to pull off on a subsonic missile, it is only a question of when will the next generation of supersonics start using more and more RA materials. While it may somewhat limit their cruise speeds, medium sized missiles that won’t be intented to be launched from 300 km away, at 15 km altitude, won’t really suffer that much from somewhat longer to target time.

Even more so, IIR seekers and supersonic antiship missile don’t have to be mutually exclusive. While certainly active radar seekers have their uses over IIR seekers in certain enviroments and mission profiles, overall idea of using IIR seekers, or perhaps at some point in the future, dual seekers for supersonics, is quite sound.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what will the next decade bring when it comes to antishipping missiles development trends.

well, unless neighboring countries give a hand with their air forces, there simply doesn’t seem to be enough combat aircraft in the vicinity for a quick and powerful campaign. 200 combat aircraft used over libya took 230 days to do their job. Granted, they did a lot of combat air support missions, but then again libya’s forces were said to be weaker than what syria has today.

Forces would first need to be flown in, and that hasn’t happened, so it seems. most of the bases around europe are fairly close to civilian areas, it would be next to impossible to hide a buildup of combat aircraft and not have it reported in some of the media somwhere in the world.

And striking from aviano is a long, long way off. would be quite inefficient. Two US carriers, even with the french carrier, can’t hope to generate enough sorties for a big and powerful campaign we saw over iraq, or even serbia. With current forces, it’d be even more protracted than Libya. Then again, forces could be sent in and redied within weeks, even as cruise missile strikes are ongoing.

Or maybe the real plan IS to place forces on cyprus or some other close base, lure the syrians into striking them with ballistic missiles, then basically say “they escalated the war. now they suffer the consequences” and get public and political support for a full scale, prolongued war against syria. 😀

the only way to track numbers of chinese aircraft is keep track of the images. Various publications that simply state the overall numbers have consitently been late by several years at least. Basically they’re still reporting number levels from 2008-2010 for most of the fleet, and sometimes they’re flat out wrong. So there isn’t a publication to link to with the right numbers. But there are websites where enthusiasts do keep track of the images and they keep track of the serial numbers and the underlying system behind those serial numbers. There have been images seen of various planes with various serial numbers pointing out towards a certian number of different regiments per plane type. Those numbers of regiments are also for the most part corroborated by Google earth imagery, with different air bases seen with certain types of planes. Scramble.nl also has a decent rundown of regiment lists with types of planes that for the most part matches those same figures.

There seem to be 5 plaaf bases/regiments with jh7/a and another 5 within planaf.
There seem to be 8 plaaf bases/regiments with j10 and another one with planaf.
There seem to be 4-5 plaaf regiments with j11b and another 2 with planaf.
There seem to be 6 plaaf regiments with j11a/su27 (which means that some of the earlies su27 have indeed been retired)
There are 4 regiments of su30 in plaaf and another one in planaf. (plaaf ones are smaller, so overall number is a bit shy of 100)
There seem to be 6 plaaf regiments of j8 and another two with planaf, of with just one is now old j8, and seven are modern enough to sport half decent radars and BVR missiles.

All those regiments number between 20-24 planes, 28 for j10 regiments.

There are also nearly 30 regiments/different bases with imagery of j7, though i personally think organizational structure with those might be different and there may be regiments with as few as 12 planes, while some (brigades, not regiments) having over 30. Yes, all of those are for modern standards more or less obsolete.

There’s also nearly obsolete q5 in under 200 airframes.

Force projection? China has very little. Nothing to contradict there. But within its borders and several hundred km out, it is a force to be reckoned with. I find it amusing that the text mentioned how china’s issue is force concetration. Yes, as with all countries, its forces are spread out around china. But china is much more compact and its forces concentrated than, for example, Russia. While China certainly can’t do much outside its broader border regions, for defense purposes its forces have quite a bit of overlap and concentration. Any one country trying to approach china can’t hope to match that concentration of force near one part of China, numbers wise. That includes the US. It’s bases aren’t as numerous and the carriers don’t offer that much, numbers wise.

Please note i’ve said nothing about quality, nor have i said anything about strategy and what various forces would do in a conflict. I was talking purely about direct defence of china’s airspace and its coastal regions. Nor have I said anything about politics. Of course if everyone and their mother ganged up on china at the same time, combined air forces of, say, US, japan, south korea and whoever else would probably be able to match the concentrated numbers of plaaf/planaf.

While lacking in tankers as force multiplier, plaaf/planaf have invested quite a bit in AEW platforms. There are two different helicopter programmes, 9 ka31 plus a detachment of domestic z8 based aew to be based from liaoning. So probably around 13 or 14 aew helicopters overall.

There are 4 larger awacs planes based on il76 platform and at least 12 different serial numbers have been identified for y8 based awacs. While lacking behind US a lot, it really means china has second biggest by numbers (and quite modern in technology) aew/awacs fleet in the world.

For decades now china’s AC production was pretty steady at some 60-80 airframes per year. Only the quality went up. It will take time before 1000 or so third gen fighters are replaced. From this point on, we’re bound to be seeing at least some of those still be active 15 years from now. And that is not even counting jh7 as third gen plane.

I really can’t offer more than google earth, coordinates of chinese bases offered at scramble.nl and literally hundreds upon hundreds of images with different planes with different serial numbers that can be found at various websites. china-defense forum has a pretty good and systematic depository of those, it’d be a good place to start. Once one “gets” the serial number system, one can differentiate various regiments and start up building one’s own projection of chinese orbat.

Well, Havaarla said “how many, if any” so he was definitely refering to an extreme of the spectrum. Since we know 3rd gen can’t be the most modern end of spectrum, it has to be the least modern.

So he was either asking how many J7s and J8s there are, or perhaps he was asking how many J6 (and to an extent q5) there are. In case of the latter, since I use the same sources as Deino does, it’s safe to say there aren’t any J6 combat planes. There are some trainer variants in service left, JJ6. And there very well may be some drones converted from old J6, but that’s it. Q5 is something in between really, especially since recent variants carry half decent avioncs and some guided weaponry. Still, i expect combat Q5 to disappear from service by the end of this decade. There are still some fairly newly produced q5J trainers though which may soldier on for another 5-10 years.

http://www.catic.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=746&columnid=1914&cpid=1653&columnType=102&likeType=view&ckw=ATAM&lang=US&dataid=4294#

Catic’s page says sd10 is 203mm wide and 3934 mm long. That is peculiar as people usually quote pl-12 to be 203mm wide but 3850mm long. But the 3,93 meter figure may be more correct because when one looks at images of actual pl12 on planes – width to length ratio, using 203mm width, does suggest a 4 meter long missile, not 3,85 meters long missile.

Using 3,93 meters length of the missile – 737 pixels of pl12 matching the width of missile in j20 gives 191,4 pixels per meter. Thus the outside dimensions of weapon bay doors, considering they measure 850 pixels, are 4,53 meters.
Using 3,85 meters for length of pl12 and this missile, it works out at 4,44 meters.

Both of those are really large figures. When one uses images of j20 where total length of plane and length of opened weapon doors are visible – consensus was that doors were around 4,3, maybe 4,5 meters long. Thus it seems quite unlikely the missile is noticably longer than pl-12. At best it’s some 8-10 cm longer, but even that is close to just conjecture. It is equally possible it’s as long as pl-12, not longer.
If it was much longer, that’d suggest 4,7 m long weapon doors or more which would then suggest 22-23 meter long plane, 3,3 meter long WVR missiles etc, – everything being oversized. I don’t believe that is the likely explanation. Likelier explanation is that we’re looking at pl-12 based body of a missile.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217604[/ATTACH]

My image was a bit compressed. Here’s another one with less compression and higher contrast. One can see a different door outline. All these fan made drawings also noted the second weapons bay. A hint of a missile can also be seen in those smaller bays, in the original image. Here i unforunetely drew that blue line over it.

Anyway, another peculiar issue is the main weapons bay. it is just too huge, really. Even if we scale the whole plane to just 23 or so meters (4 meter long aam bays) the main weapons bay seems to be almost 7,5 meters long. Ratio of main weapons bay length and length of the whole plane is really so huge that i can’t think of a single plane that had a similar ratio.

Unless i’m looking at it the wrong way and the bay doors aren’t that long. There is really no need for such long weapon bay, it is too long even for cj10 class cruise missiles. One could of course assume there are twin longitudinal bays but that’s again too large, that’s suggest a 45 meter long plane, far heavier than even H6. 7 meters would be more than enough for both cruise missiles and a large antiship missile. I don’t believe yj12 is 6-7 meters long, but even if it it, it’d still fit. And two would still fit, and it’s unlikely the bay is narrow. On the contrary, precisely because of the whole layout of the plan and top mounted intakes, the width of the weapon bays may be be quite significant, more so than on j20, for example.

Another peculiar thing is that with such a slender layout and such a huge portion of internal space being taken by weapon bays – fuel allowance may be quite miniscule.

hm, okay, “future larger bvraams” might explain it. but that is just one possibility. Another possibility is that the weapon bays arent planned for anything other than what j20’s bays are planned for. and bays in j20 aren’t that big. Plus i got a smaller ratio, around 5.7. One gets around 6.1 if one measures from tip of nose to visible tip of the rudder, but that is not a proper measurement due to the fact rudder is off longitudinal axis and a kinda wide angle lens used to film the model from a close distance.

Plus there is no need for 35cm clearance from both sides. If one looks at images of, say, f22 and amraams in its bay, one can see the clearance is actually 4-5 5% of amraam’s length on either side. at best it works out to total of 35cm, not 35cm on each side. Please note that raptor’s missiles are staggered and that there is excess clearance for first and third missile in the front and excess clearance for the second missile’s tail. One can also see that aim-9’s weapons bay is more closely tailored, being some 30 cm longer than the missile, so 15 cm of clearance on each side.

Why would a heavy striker/light bomber even carry lots of bvraams? some strikes don’t carry any. A lot of them carry only a pair of wvr missiles. Some may carry bvr, but carrying more than that doesn’t really mesh with the role of the plane. Plus its configuration that prevents high alpha angle manouvers doesn’t really suggest it should even have to use a lot of missiles.

Another issue is room for radar. If cockpit is indeed where the model suggests, then the radar on that plane is going to be quite a small thing. that too wouldn’t mesh well with bvr missiles, especially some future large ones.

To sum it up, there is really no proof in either direction, all this is just guesswork on a model of unkown properties. But I think it’s just as equally plausible that the model is representing a smaller aircraft than a 28-29meter one. Something much closer to the likes of su-34 and/or f111. Even 22 meters seems possible to me, but that’d be my lower limit guess. Highest estimate under the said assumptions would be some 25 meters in length.

I think that was a lousy translation. it is virtually impossible those mirages have 6500 hours left. at best, 6500 hours is planned lifespan of the airframe. Since last f-1 were delivered to spain in 1983. that would mean 30 years of usage. if they flew 180 hours per pilot with 1.3 pilots per plane (usaf average, though in smaller air forces like spanish that may be even higher) that would amount to 7000 hours so far. if they flew just 120 hours per pilot that’d amount to 4700 hours. IISS 2012 says spain’s af pilots flew 180 hours on fighter AC. Perhaps older model like f-1 was flown less, but it’s hard to imagine they flew less than USSR average during cold war of 120-130 hours. So, at best, there is some 5-10 years of life in those planes. At worst, the planes have reached their factory limit and now one has to do some serious renovation of highest stressed parts to inject several more years than was planned into those airframes. The article does actually say something to that extent at its end – how the planes would need refurbishment.